# Administration to Seek 300 BILLION from Big Tobacco



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

You think that the tobacco industry can absorb this and the tax-based price increases?

Cigars for $25.00 each for a cheapie.

A 50 gram tin of pipe tobacco for $35.00

A pack of cigs, $25.00.

These are just guesses at prices, but since the only place that "big tobacco" get its money is sales of products..... WE get to pay their settlements AND sales taxes.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-su...0220-omqe.html

WASHINGTON: The Obama Administration has asked the US Supreme Court to allow the government to seek close to $US300 billion ($330 billion) from the tobacco industry for half a century of deception that ''has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans''.

Both sides in a landmark, decade-long legal fight over smoking took their case to the Supreme Court on Friday.

The administration and public health groups want the court to throw out rulings that bar the government from collecting $US280 billion of past tobacco profits, as well as $US14 billion for a campaign to curb smoking.

Tobacco companies want the Supreme Court to wipe away court rulings that the industry illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking. If they succeed, the attack on their profits would also be halted.

Friday's filings with the Supreme Court mark the latest phase in a lawsuit that began during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco maker, its parent company, Altria Group, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco filed separate but related appeals.

These appeals take issue with a federal judge's 1600-page opinion and an appeals court ruling that found the industry engaged in racketeering and fraud over several decades. Appeals from other tobacco companies were also expected.

In 2006 US District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the companies engaged in a scheme to defraud the public by falsely denying the adverse health effects of smoking, concealing evidence that nicotine was addictive and lying about their manipulation of nicotine in cigarettes to create addiction.

A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the findings.

However, the courts have said the government is not entitled to collect $US280 billion in past profits or $US14 billion for a national campaign to curb smoking.

The companies argue that the government improperly used the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations law, or RICO law. It is often used against the Mafia and other criminal groups.

They also say the courts' decision to brand their statements about smoking as fraudulent unfairly denied them their first amendment rights to engage in the public-health debate about smoking.

The Administration said the money it sought from the industry was commensurate with the harm it has caused.

''For the last half-century those defendants have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering that has cost the lives and damaged the health of untold millions of Americans,'' Solicitor-General Elena Kagan wrote.

The other tobacco company defendants are British American Tobacco Investments and Lorillard Tobacco.

Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard account for nearly 90 per cent of US retail cigarette sales. A former US subsidiary of British American Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Tobacco, merged with R.J. Reynolds six years ago.


----------



## strider72 (Jan 25, 2009)

Luckily liberalism is not as addictive as nicotine. If everything that is bad for you told you so;
"This BigMac will kill you." (that's why is tastes so good)
"This car is hazardous to your health." (my kind of car)
"Too much tv will rot your brain." (oops, too late for me)
"Don't breath so much, the carbon dioxide you breathe out is killing the planet." (makes me want to smoke more cigars and humanely put the planet out of its misery)
"This Gun-free Zone increases your chance to be in a shooting." (haven't seen the actual statistics but that's the way it looks)
Forgive me if I "ad-libbed" just a little...


----------



## Zeb Zoober (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't know if Tobacco companies could absorb the hit. But I am not so quick to blame others besides Tobacco companies for the position they are in. I guess I look at it as an industry that conspired for years to cover-up or hide the danger their products posed. I'm not saying that consumers shouldn't be allowed to choose what they buy or consume. But rather if a business or industry covers-up or lies about the dangers of their product in the past that it shouldn't come back to bite them.

Now whether the government should be allowed to go back and sue for damages on past court decisions, some rendered decades ago, is another matter. I guess that is in the hands for the courts to decide.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

Zeb Zoober said:


> I don't know if Tobacco companies could absorb the hit. But I am not so quick to blame others besides Tobacco companies for the position they are in. I guess I look at it as an industry that conspired for years to cover-up or hide the danger their products posed. I'm not saying that consumers shouldn't be allowed to choose what they buy or consume. But rather if a business or industry covers-up or lies about the dangers of their product in the past that it shouldn't come back to bite them.
> 
> Now whether the government should be allowed to go back and sue for damages on past court decisions, some rendered decades ago, is another matter. I guess that is in the hands for the courts to decide.


What I want to see now is the Government sue THEMSELVES for past damages incurred in auto accidents due to any vehicular fault of GM cars.


----------



## Zeb Zoober (Oct 31, 2009)

phatmax said:


> What I want to see now is the Government sue THEMSELVES for past damages incurred in auto accidents due to any vehicular fault of GM cars.


Really? That would be like me or you suing ourselves since it is the population that funds the our government.

Anyway, this is drifting off topic and we shouldn't let it.

I think it comes down to accountability. Businesses should be held accountable just like individuals should be. Again, whether it is proper or allowable to go back and attempt to reverse decades court judgments or seek damages based on what is perceived to be an industry cover-up in litigation from more than a decade ago, probably won't fly with the courts. I could be wrong though (wouldn't be the first or last time)

I'm an ex cigarette smoker and current cigar smoker and chewing tobacco user. I don't want to see prices go up for a personal reasons. I try not to let my personal desires get in the way of my over all thinking of right and wrong. Basically, I am not for giving a 'pass' to an industry or company if there was wrong-doing just because I use or like their product.


----------



## pomorider (Nov 14, 2009)

Let's if the Government got what they want, how are they going to spend the money??


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

Zeb Zoober said:


> Really? That would be like me or you suing ourselves since it is the population that funds the our government.
> 
> Anyway, this is drifting off topic and we shouldn't let it.
> 
> ...


My comment was sarcastic, because the government would never admit culpability, especially if they stand to make money off the taxpayer.

You are right that it comes down to accountability.

Cigarettes have been known as "Coffin Nails" since at least the 1800's. No one has ever been "unaware" of the dangers of smoking at least in the last 150 years. Anyone who says they did not know it was dangerous is either lying or so ignorant they are a danger to themselves and society.

It also comes down to freedom, pure and simple. I smoke pipes. If I get a disease, I will deal with it through my own funds or insurance that I work for. I am not going to ask other people to pay for MY decisions. On the reverse side of that, I also expect not to have to pay for other people's decisions.

Say that we get Socialist medicine and we all pay taxes towards it. A person decides that they are going to drive recklessly and has an accident. They get horribly injured and have to spend a year in the hospital to get well. All that while they are not working, hence, not paying into the system.

You and I, on the other hand are working our butts off to cover our own expenses and our hard work goes to pay for the guy in the hospital, who, through HIS OWN DECISION and bad judgement, became injured.

How is that any different then the arguement about tobacco? Is that driver going to get taxed at a higher rate because he drives faster?
Is he going to pay extra "health taxes" if his car has lots of horsepower?

He might pay more for car insurance, but will the government add additional fees to cover health services? Will those apply to all car insurance policies?

One aspect of freedom is the taking of risks. Life in itself is a risk, and you, not the state, should be responsible for accepting the risks, rewards and punishments associated with your life. Not others.

It is not right and not proper for others to pay for ANY health services for ANYONE else but themselves or family.

When I say it is about Freedom, I mean this:
I should be free to use tobacco without undue taxation, as I will not call upon the public treasury to heal me if I get sick.
Companies should be free to sell me tobacco without undue penalties, as I the consumer, am aware that it can adversely affect my health.


----------



## MattN (Dec 19, 2009)

How much would this impact the tobacco that most of us here use? I really don't understand the distribution and supply end of things with this so I'm really curious. I understand that packs of Marlboro and Camel cigarettes would necessarialy go up to pay for this, but how much do the companies involved in this lawsuit have to do with cigars and pipe tobacco?

Matt


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

MattN said:


> How much would this impact the tobacco that most of us here use? I really don't understand the distribution and supply end of things with this so I'm really curious. I understand that packs of Marlboro and Camel cigarettes would necessarialy go up to pay for this, but how much do the companies involved in this lawsuit have to do with cigars and pipe tobacco?
> 
> Matt


My concern is that once a cash cow is found, all cows that look the same will be bled dry. For example the whole RYO tax going to be applied to pipe tobacco.

Being that most pipe tobbaco is manufactured offshore or by foreign companies, if this happens, I would expect those companies to look at their bottom line and decide that sales in the US are not worth the risk/cost.

The same for Cigars.

A lot of what will happen with tobacco is going to shake out with the liabilty issues and how Congress and the Administration treat Toyota. This will be a defining moment in how foreign companies assess doing business with the US.


----------



## MattN (Dec 19, 2009)

phatmax said:


> My concern is that once a cash cow is found, all cows that look the same will be bled dry. For example the whole RYO tax going to be applied to pipe tobacco.


But this particular lawsuit seems to be going after companies for which impropriety was part of their business for quite a while. I guess I'm wondering how much the companies that were named in this suit have to do with the majority of pipe tobaccos and cigars sold in the U.S.

I agree with an above poster that I also do not give a pass to a company that has been shady just because I enjoy their products. I do doubt that this decision will be overturned by the S.C. however.

Matt


----------



## ejgarnut (Sep 28, 2009)

$330 billion?? all i can say is - time to get into black market selling tobacco


----------



## strider72 (Jan 25, 2009)

If we start getting into the habit of getting "getting" shady companies... almost all our companies have been shady at one time or another... Microsoft.. Walmart.. Kmart.. GE.. Boeing/etc.. Let's not start talking about Wall Street.. Banks.. Credit card companies.. Oil companies.. Auto compnaies.. So on.. so forth..


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

And that is the ultimate goal, to villify all industry and portray the government as the ultimate savior. 
It is the same tactic used by leftist/marxist revolutionists for decades. 
Alinsky's book is like a roadmap for this behavior.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

And that is the ultimate goal, to villify all industry and portray the government as the ultimate savior. 
It is the same tactic used by leftist/marxist revolutionists for decades. 
Alinsky's book is like a roadmap for this behavior. 

Simply put, divide and conquer, with some finer techniques thrown in there. 
Make everyone else live in a muddy moral grey area, and the more muddled and confused, the easier to manipulate.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

Stupid blackberry posts


----------



## MattN (Dec 19, 2009)

Hmm, maybe I should have used a stronger word than "shady" to describe the business practices of these companies.

Matt


----------



## Zeb Zoober (Oct 31, 2009)

And why not go after 'shady' corporations if there is evidence of wrong-doing - be it by government agencies or civilly. I would expect nothing less if it were an individual person that had done something illegal.


----------



## nativetexan_1 (Jan 1, 2008)

Since the 1960's (or whatever year), every pack/carton of cigarettes has had printed warnings on the packaging. NOBODY has recently smoked without those constant warnings. They have chosen to ignore them and smoke anyway. (Good for them.) Isn't there some since of fairness in a "statute of limitations"?


----------



## Zeb Zoober (Oct 31, 2009)

nativetexan_1 said:


> Since the 1960's (or whatever year), every pack/carton of cigarettes has had printed warnings on the packaging. NOBODY has recently smoked without those constant warnings. They have chosen to ignore them and smoke anyway. (Good for them.) Isn't there some since of fairness in a "statute of limitations"?


The statute of limitations I'll agree with. I don't think the government will be successful because of that if they are looking to bring up wrong doings from decade(s) ago. It will be interesting to see if this even goes much further.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Another reason I am buying cigars like a crazy man. Another year and I should be around 3,000 cigars and that will be my stopping point unless they stop taxing tobbacco.


----------



## Hwkiller (Feb 14, 2010)

Ridiculous. 

I'm well aware that cigars are not good for me, it's why I enjoy them in moderation (seriously, maybe two a month).
Capitalism does not work correctly when the government interferes. It can't. That's the entire point of capitalism.

They already took away advertisements for tobacco industries.
They already tax them quite a bit.
There are government-sponsored anti-tobacco campaigns.

I think we're well informed enough about the health hazards of tobacco. We don't smoke because of ignorance.

Yes, it's unhealthy.
For God's sake, so is fast food, but where's that sin tax?
CVD is the leading cause of deaths in America, but totally un-nutritional, fatty foods are encouraged to thrive.

They're not looking out for the interest of the people's safety; if they were, they should be looking into cancer research and campaigns about obesity.


----------



## strider72 (Jan 25, 2009)

Hwkiller said:


> Ridiculous.
> They already took away advertisements for tobacco industries.
> They already tax them quite a bit.
> There are government-sponsored anti-tobacco campaigns.
> ...


In the interest of the people... since when does any of them(well maybe a few) give a rat's butt about the peoples interest... They already waste the tobacco tax revenue on whatever... But no, they ain't happy... They ran out of money and are going to hit tobacco users again...

Be careful what you ask for on the fast food sin tax.. Enough out of touch libs hear it and BAMM!!! Then we have a $10 Big Mac..


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

strider72 said:


> In the interest of the people... since when does any of them(well maybe a few) give a rat's butt about the peoples interest... They already waste the tobacco tax revenue on whatever... But no, they ain't happy... They ran out of money and are going to hit tobacco users again...
> 
> Be careful what you ask for on the fast food sin tax.. Enough out of touch libs hear it and BAMM!!! Then we have a $10 Big Mac..


In regards to the food thing... Part of the Healthcare bill is open access to your financial accounts.

Plus with all the data-mining ability the government has... just watch... If the bill passes, eventually, if you use any form of electronic payment at fast food restaurants or buy too much ice cream at Kroger, the nanny state will become aware of your eating habits and WILL penalize you somehow. Higher rates, higher taxes or something.

I suppose that Burger King and McDonald's are "shady" too, along with Brewster's, Dairy Queen, et. al. for not having HUGE neon signs proclaiming that they are not a healthy choice and have you sign a waiver not holding them responsible if you get a huge ass and a heart attack.

Every motorcycle maker on the planet should be held liable, they make a machine that won't even stand up on its own and expect people to RIDE it? That MUST be unsafe. But I am sure no consumer is aware of that danger.

They keep trying this Sh1T with guns too. How dare a company produce a product as dangerous as a gun.... I mean you can't even look down the barrel and pull the trigger to check if it is loaded without killing yourself.


----------



## d32 (Jan 26, 2010)

runaway govt juggernaut strikes again.

They try to control everything, when they have already proven themselves inept at managing anything. 

bureaucracy trying to find ways to fund itself. Eventually the only "industry" we will have left is govt employment at this rate...


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 20, 2008)

The most messed up part about this is, I guarantee in the heads of those seeking the funds, it is not even about really punishing big tobacco, it is just a way to get a lot of money to pay for social programs.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

d32 said:


> runaway govt juggernaut strikes again.
> 
> They try to control everything, when they have already proven themselves inept at managing anything.
> 
> bureaucracy trying to find ways to fund itself. Eventually the only "industry" we will have left is govt employment at this rate...


Look at the Greek debacle currently, 50% of their workers are GOVERNMENT workers and their system is collapsing, because Governement workers do not create wealth, they only use it.

Wealth is only created by adding value to an object and selling it, such as processing raw tobacco into products and selling it for a profit.

Not taking money from one group and giving it to another and paying some .gov employee to do it. ALWAYS a net loss of wealth.


----------



## Dr. Nick (Jan 12, 2010)

Jack Straw said:


> The most messed up part about this is, I guarantee in the heads of those seeking the funds, *it is not even about really punishing big tobacco, it is just a way to get a lot of money to pay for social programs.*


Bingo!

Since the Obama regime said they would "cut" taxes for 95% of the American people (when in reality only 45% actually pay taxes) they can't raise revenue that way. Since the ultimate goal is to take as much money as possible from the "rich" they want to attack everything attributed to "rich" people. Traditionally cigar smoking has been one of those things.

IN the future look for "luxury taxes" on plastic surgery, bottles of Scotch & Champagne, increasing taxes on luxury cars, etc.

And in the end it's all so they can take that money and funnel it into programs like the ones that got us into the financial mess we're in now. 
I submit that the goal of the entire stimulus push hasn't been to make things better. It's been to make things worse and try to force their hand into getting the US into a socialist state.

You want to fix everything then get rid of the IRS, the illegal income tax and vote for the FairTax!!!!!!


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

Dr. Nick said:


> Bingo!
> 
> Since the Obama regime said they would "cut" taxes for 95% of the American people (when in reality only 45% actually pay taxes) they can't raise revenue that way. Since the ultimate goal is to take as much money as possible from the "rich" they want to attack everything attributed to "rich" people. Traditionally cigar smoking has been one of those things.
> 
> ...


Careful, you are saying the words not to be spoken, lest thee be associated with a certain lunatic in Texas lately.

Seriously, talk like this is going to become the latest in the repertoire of targets that the Iron Heel and Fist seek to eliminate. People who speak out against unfair taxation will be lumped in with bin Ladin and the Taliban.

Expect soon that speaking your mind will be fine as long as you do nothing to criticize the actions of the state. Then you will be considered a "fringe" person and threat to the "greater good".

This includes speaking out about the freedom to smoke tobacco products. You will be deemed "insane" because only a "crazy person" would willingly "poison" themselves, therefore are a danger to themselves and society. Goodbye right to vote, own guns, get cheap healthcare and get a good job, you mental deficient.

ETA: Oh and don't forget your taxes are going to go up AT LEAST 3% for this year, because the Bush tax cuts are being allowed to expire.

Not only have I not gotten a raise two years in a row, my bonus was cut 10% last year and another 10% this year. Add that together and I will be making a lot less. At least I still have a job.


----------



## strider72 (Jan 25, 2009)

Oh no... We're on the fringe lunatics... we believe in the U.S. Constitution, fair/reasonable taxes, freedom to do harm unto OURSELVES!, not a nanny on every freaking thing we do... 

Heaven forbid they limit how much flatulence we are allowed to release.


----------



## phatmax (Mar 18, 2009)

As a side note:

DENVER (AP) - Gov. Bill Ritter said he had no choice when he signed a package of bills taxing everything from candy and soda to online sales to help close a $1.5 billion shortfall in next year's $18 billion budget.

The new laws are expected to raise about $148 million over the next two years.

MORE Sin taxes that won't make any dent in the real debt but PUNISH AMERICANS.http://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## presidentbryce (Oct 9, 2008)

As an adult, I make the informed decision to smoke at my own risk. What's next? A fat tax on McDonald's ? Heart disease causes far more deaths than lung/throat cancer. The government has already "looked out for me" with all of the warnings on the package. Now unless they are going to provide me with all of the treatments that I need if I eventually get cancer, then let me put my money where I want to... towards huge health care premiums! Ha.


----------



## Davetopay (Jan 19, 2008)

First I will admit to not reading every post in the thread, so forgive me if I am repeating this thought.

As cigar and pipe lovers we are consumers of a very small percentage of the tobacco grown. Most of it really being a niche crop when you look at the total acreage of tobacco grown each year. If the more common and mainstream styles of tobacco are taxed and sued out of business, there will not be enough demand for the high volume, high profit margin crop that often allows farmers to grow the less common strains. I have seen this happen first hand where I grew up in Southern MD. As a child almost half the cleared farm acreage in the county would be growing tobacco. Maybe even more. We had Virginias, Burleys, Maryland, and even a few heirloom varieties. Now I will bet you can't even find 250 acres combined in a growing season. Corn and soybeans have taken their place as cash crops. While I am not a huge fan of the mindless nature of cigs and dip, these are the backbone of the manufacturing industry. If they don't exist, small blending houses for classic pipe baccy and some cigar makers will be in trouble.


----------



## strider72 (Jan 25, 2009)

Just remember, Obama and the Democrats will save us all..... From having that bad money to spend on our families/friends/even ourselves... How selfish of us. They know things to spend it on that are so much better for us..


----------



## golfermd (Feb 18, 2009)

As Maggie Thatcher once said, with socialism sooner or later you run out of the other persons money. I guess the cigar I smoke every few weeks lately is going to kill me tomorrow....


----------



## 1029henry (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm getting really tired of politicians balancing the budget on the backs of the working class. Does anyone think that these same politicians don't indulge in luxury foods, champagne, liquors, and yes, cigars at their expensive black tie dinners?


----------



## tpharkman (Feb 20, 2010)

Who do you think smoke all of the CCs that get confiscated every year? I am not going as far to say I know it for a fact but I can't believe they are actually destroying the heavenly leaf they find in customs inspections.


----------



## GunHand (Sep 20, 2009)

Ditto that! :bawling:


----------

